Hugh H. Bownes

Name: Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court
Author: Hugh H. Bownes

Summary

“Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Hugh H. Bownes. It explores elements such as intervention, Hubbard and defendant.

Quotes from Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court (Hugh H. Bownes)

Hugh H. Bownes, Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court

“ Although the court correctly, in my view, recognizes that intervention should not be granted, I do not accept its basis, i.e., the fact that the named defendant will not appear precludes a nonparty's right to intervene. To the contrary, that fact itself satisfies the rule's third requirement. Intervention is inappropriate because of appellants' failure to show that they have protectible interests that will be impaired by this litigation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Hugh H. Bownes, Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court

“ Giving Cascade the broadest possible reading, we do not think it affords any basis for the proposition that if an individual has an interest in a case, as defined by the rule, he or she can intervene absent a defendant. The Court gave two reasons for allowing intervention, "an interest in the transaction" and the failure of the "existing parties" to represent the intervenor's interests. Here, Hubbard has not appeared to date; until or unless he does, it cannot be determined whether he will or can represent adequately the interests of the putative intervenors. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Hugh H. Bownes, Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court

“ A party who fails to appear for trial and thus receives a default judgment has failed to represent the interests of the would-be intervenor. Thus, if the union in Woolworth failed to appear before the district court to challenge the employer's motion for summary judgment, the interests of the discharged employees would be left inadequately represented. Where significantly protectible interests of a putative party may be adversely affected in a litigation and the sole defendant chooses not to appear, intervention is warranted. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Hugh H. Bownes, Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court

“ Hubbard. Plaintiff has made defendant the sole target of his action. Whatever carom effect may occur is the direct result of defendant's failure to appear. We hold that because the sole defendant has chosen not to appear in this tort action, there can be no intervention by the joint tort-feasors under Rule 24 (a) (2) until and unless the defendant appears.
FN2. It is black letter law that those not a party to an action are not bound by an adverse judgment against the named defendant. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Hugh H. Bownes, Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court

“ As mentioned previously, the record in the instant case amply supports the appellants' assertion that Hubbard will not appear.↑ Id. Cases where the question of adequacy of representation is more difficult include those where the party is adverse to the absentee, where the interests of the absentee and of the party are different, though perhaps similar, and where the interest of the absentee is identical with that of one of the existing parties. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Hugh H. Bownes, Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court

“ The court's decision to exclude from this rule's scope cases in which the named defendant has chosen not to appear runs counter to the goal of protecting those who are not otherwise represented. Indeed, if the other conditions are satisfied, this type of situation presents the clearest need for permitting intervention because the nonparties' interests will not be represented at all. Wright & Miller, supra, at 524. "An interest that is not represented is surely not adequately represented and intervention must be allowed." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Hugh H. Bownes, Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court

“ Flight Transportation Corp., 699 F.2d 943 (8th Cir.1983) , as authority for her right to intervene based on her economic interest in the assets of her husband. In that case, the SEC commenced an action against Flight Transportation Corp., two subsidiary corporations, and William Rubin, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the three corporations. ”

Hugh H. Bownes

Summary

Quotes from Flynn v. Hubbard — Opinion of the Court (Hugh H. Bownes)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature